One-bedroom bungalow at Land North East Of 93 Dartford Road, March

What was proposed

The application sought a single-storey, one-bedroom self-build or custom-build dwelling, including demolition of an existing garage.

“Erect 1 x self-build/custom build dwelling including the demolition of existing garage…”

“The application site is a vacant, narrow strip of land which runs behind 83-93 Dartford Road in March. The application seeks full planning permission to erect 1 x self-build/custom build dwelling including the demolition of existing garage. The 1x dwelling would be single storey, detached and would have one bedroom.”

Officer report

The site

The site was a vacant, narrow strip of garden land behind houses, accessed between two properties from Dartford Road.

“SITE DESCRIPTION 2.1 The application site is located within an established residential area within March and currently forms a strip of garden land. The width of the site at the largest point is some 8.6 metres. The site runs to the rear of 83-93 Dartford Road and is accessed from Dartford Road in between Nos. 93 and 94. Immediately to the north of the site is 94A Dartford Road, which forms one of a pair of ‘backland’ dwellings accessed via their own private drive.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Three earlier applications for single-storey dwellings on the site were refused between 2013 and 2017.

“F/YR13/0416/F Erection of a single storey 2-bed dwelling involving demolition of existing outbuilding Refuse 5 Aug 2013 F/YR13/0114/F”

“Erection of a single storey 2-bed dwelling Refuse 12 Apr 2013”

Officer report

Why officers recommended refusal

Officers considered the development cramped, out of keeping, harmful to residential amenity and unsupported by an enforceable self-build agreement.

“Whilst the proposal has overcome some of the issues previously raised, the constraints of the site still remain. It is considered that the proposal has not significantly changed and there are previous issues that are still relevant.”

“In the absence of a legal agreement or other enforceable mechanism to secure the delivery and occupation of the proposed dwelling as a self-build unit, the development fails to meet the definition and requirements of self-build housing as set out in the Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 (as amended).”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The town council supported the proposal, highways raised a bin-store condition, environmental health had no objection, and one neighbour objected.

“Cambridgeshire County Council Highways Authority: Following a careful review of the documents provided to the Local Highway Authority as part of the above planning application, I have no objection to the principal of the development, should it gain benefit of planning permission. However, in order to make the vehicle access acceptable to the highways authority the bin store as shown on the plans must be relocated outside of the vehicle access.”

“Environment & Health Services (FDC): The Environmental Health Team note and accept the submitted information and have 'No Objections' to the proposed scheme as it is unlikely to have a detrimental effect on local air quality, adversely impact the local amenity due to excessive artificial lighting or be affected by ground contamination.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The agent and applicant spoke in support, describing a retirement home with adequate space, parking, gardens and self-build benefits.

Members’ debate

Members discussed the site’s size, self-build supply, the missing legal agreement, bin collection, visibility and the benefits of a smaller home.

“Section 106. She stated that this application appears to be like the last application, and she stated that maybe consideration should be given to deferring the application for the legal agreement to be prepared and brought back to the committee. • Councillor Benney asked officers to confirm the numbers of self-build dwellings which are held on the Council’s register at the current time.”

“Councillor Mrs French stated that she would like to see the application deferred to give the applicant the opportunity which has been afforded to the last application. • Matthew Leigh stated that best practice is when there is a Section 106 required for an application, should the application be refused a reason for refusal is imposed that ties into the need for that.”

Minutes

The vote

A proposal to follow the officer recommendation and refuse the application failed, while a proposal for approval was agreed.

“Councillor Benney stated that he would like to propose to go with the officer’s recommendation and refuse the application. This proposal was not supported by members and, therefore, the proposal failed.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee granted permission against the officer recommendation, subject to officers handling the legal agreement and appropriate conditions.

“Proposed by Councillor Mrs French, seconded by Councillor Purser and agreed that the application be GRANTED against the officer’s recommendation, subject to the legal agreement, Section 106 and appropriate conditions to be delegated to officers.”

“Members do not support the officer’s recommendation of refusal as the committee have passed other applications previously with smaller areas and they believe that the proposed dwelling has more than the minimum required space standards both internally and externally and, therefore, do not believe the proposal can be classed as cramped.”

Minutes